Animated Series Blu-Ray Plans

So, the bottom line is that you don't know how they did it, correct? I don't know either; welcome to the club!

Click to expand...

No, that's not the bottom line at all. Lack of absolute certainty is not remotely the same as total ignorance. I've explained to you what the most likely possibilities are, based on general knowledge of the subject matter, observation of the data, and deductive reasoning. Or rather, I've explained what I'm reasonably certain the explanation is, but since I think intellectual honesty demands openness to alternatives, I've offered a second possibility as well, though I don't consider it as probable. I think if the "auras" cel were far enough above the other cels to be out of focus, it would also be far enough away that the difference in image size would be much more pronounced.

One cannot be intellectually responsible -- or honest with oneself or others -- if one does not admit the possibility that one's conclusions could be wrong. But that is not the same thing as knowing nothing. Honest doubt is not ignorance; it is simply willingness to question and learn.

Lack of absolute certainty is not remotely the same as total ignorance. I've explained to you what the most likely possibilities are, based on general knowledge of the subject matter, observation of the data, and deductive reasoning. Or rather, I've explained what I'm reasonably certain the explanation is, but since I think intellectual honesty demands openness to alternatives, I've offered a second possibility as well, though I don't consider it as probable. I think if the "auras" cel were far enough above the other cels to be out of focus, it would also be far enough away that the difference in image size would be much more pronounced.

One cannot be intellectually responsible -- or honest with oneself or others -- if one does not admit the possibility that one's conclusions could be wrong. But that is not the same thing as knowing nothing. Honest doubt is not ignorance; it is simply willingness to question and learn.

Click to expand...

I don't recall accusing you of being totally ignorant or knowing nothing.

I'm just trying to separate speculation and theory--however well informed and otherwise--from actual knowledge. I enjoy trying to figure out how things are done, but no matter what I come up with, I wasn't there looking over the shoulders of the artists watching all their techniques.

Maybe some of the books listed at http://www.danhausertrek.com/AnimatedSeries/Refs.html have some of the answers we're looking for here, according to people who were actually there and involved. Besides the new book Lou Scheimer: Creating The Filmation Generation, by Lou Scheimer with Andy Mangels, there's also Animation by Filmation by Michael Swanigan and Darrell McNeill. But I don't know what's in those two books, because I don't have them.

I don't recall accusing you of being totally ignorant or knowing nothing.

Click to expand...

That's sure how that "welcome to the club" line sounded. It was needlessly dismissive.

I'm just trying to separate speculation and theory--however well informed and otherwise--from actual knowledge. I enjoy trying to figure out how things are done, but no matter what I come up with, I wasn't there looking over the shoulders of the artists watching all their techniques.

Click to expand...

But we can narrow down the possibilities. I'm certain that the auras in that screencap are out of focus rather than airbrushed or backlit; all three look different, and that is definitely a focus effect. And there are only two possible ways that two images in the same frame of an animated cartoon could be differently focused. One is if they're double-exposed, and the other is if a multiplane camera was used. So we can say with confidence that it was done in one of those two ways. And I'm not sure Filmation had a multiplane camera at the time. I don't recall TAS doing any focus tricks to give a 3D appearance, with foreground and background objects being in different focus. And from the transparency of the yellow color in various other screencaps, I'd say it's far more likely a double exposure than a multiplane overlay.

However, in this screencap from the same episode, Uhura's force field aura definitely looks airbrushed instead:

You can see that the edge of it has a subtly speckled effect, a telltale of airbrushing which is not present in the earlier screencap.

Looking over the force field belt shots in other episodes, like "Beyond the Farthest Star," shows clearly that the look of the auras differed from shot to shot. So I think we can reliably conclude that they used more than one technique. Some shots did indeed use airbrushing, others probably used double exposure. So some could've used some kind of multiplane effect as well, though that's iffy. As is usually the case in animation and special effects, they used whatever technique worked best for each shot, rather than relying on only a single technique throughout.

There's also the matter of visibility. Characters in animation need to be easily distinguishable on sight. Putting them in spacesuits would've made it harder to tell who was who in a long shot. The force field belts let viewers see the characters just as clearly as they could normally.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Hanna-Barbera's Sealab: 2020 (1972) regularly featured characters in the oft-used "duty" uniforms, but had the smae characters in diving suits where the face was covered save for the mask, whether it was a close-up or wide, and this period of H-B animation was as cost-cutting (already produced out of America) as other U.S. animation houses. That said, I don't think TAS risked breaking the budget or confusing viewers with TOS-styled spacesuits.

Certainly, the force field version took less labor to execute, but this was a series where a host of new aliens, TOS characters, etc., with elaborate costume designs were the rule, not the exception.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Hanna-Barbera's Sealab: 2020 (1972) regularly featured characters in the oft-used "duty" uniforms, but had the smae characters in diving suits where the face was covered save for the mask, whether it was a close-up or wide, and this period of H-B animation was as cost-cutting (already produced out of America) as other U.S. animation houses.

Click to expand...

I watched plenty of '70s Hanna-Barbera animation growing up, so just because H-B did something, I don't consider that to be evidence that it was a good idea artistically.

I watched plenty of '70s Hanna-Barbera animation growing up, so just because H-B did something, I don't consider that to be evidence that it was a good idea artistically.

Click to expand...

You were not arguing the artistic value with:

Characters in animation need to be easily distinguishable on sight. Putting them in spacesuits would've made it harder to tell who was who in a long shot. The force field belts let viewers see the characters just as clearly as they could normally

Click to expand...

That was an argument of being practical for the sake of character recognition. The point was that character recognition (your point) was possible and proven in a series which mirrored ST to some degree. The TOS spacesuits could have been used for continuity's sake, and not sacrifice the audience's ability to recognize characters no matter their placement in a scene, just as it was accomplished on Sealab: 2020.

I think I would have gladly tossed continuity aside in the case of the environment suits. The design from TOS was the ugliest thing I'd ever seen. What the heck were they thinking with that helmet?It was like horse blinders on the sides and two or three times as tall as necessary.

I think I would have gladly tossed continuity aside in the case of the environment suits. The design from TOS was the ugliest thing I'd ever seen. What the heck were they thinking with that helmet?It was like horse blinders on the sides and two or three times as tall as necessary.

Click to expand...

Let's remember that the series aired during the height of the space race. Audiences were well aware what a real NASA EVA suit looked like, so the producers had to go for an exotic look.

I think the tall helmet and the silver suit were deliberately designed to evoke allusions to robots. After all, in zero gravity and space your movement becomes different, so I think the design was rather good than bad (maybe in real life the "horse blinders" would have shiffted position depending on your eye movement).

However, the name tags were somewhat odd. In case you got lost or separated, someone else finding your body would at least be able to identify you by your name.

Characters in animation need to be easily distinguishable on sight. Putting them in spacesuits would've made it harder to tell who was who in a long shot. The force field belts let viewers see the characters just as clearly as they could normally

Click to expand...

That was an argument of being practical for the sake of character recognition. The point was that character recognition (your point) was possible and proven in a series which mirrored ST to some degree.

Click to expand...

Please don't presume to tell me what I intended by my own statement. My point in both cases was about whether it was a good idea from a design standpoint. You may think I was saying two different things in the two posts, but I wasn't.

The TOS spacesuits could have been used for continuity's sake, and not sacrifice the audience's ability to recognize characters no matter their placement in a scene, just as it was accomplished on Sealab: 2020.

Click to expand...

Prove it. Prove that the audience for that show was not confused about who was who. Give me testimonials to that effect.

Anyway, I think you're making the mistake of arguing from hindsight. You see the force field belts as a continuity error because later productions went back to spacesuits. But again I need to point out to you something that should be immediately obvious: the people making TAS in 1973-4 did not know that there would be any later ST productions at all, let alone that they'd go back to using spacesuits. As far as they knew, they were the only continuation of ST there was ever going to be. And they made a choice to depict a more futuristic technology than their live-action predecessor was able to achieve, just as they made a choice to depict more exotic aliens and landscapes, a wider array of starship and shuttle designs, etc. It was meant to be a more advanced design taking the place of the older spacesuits. That's not a continuity error any more than the upgraded communicators of TNG were. It was meant to represent progress. The decision of later productions to ignore the force field belts was what created the continuity problem.

The decision of later productions to ignore the force field belts was what created the continuity problem.

Click to expand...

Technically correct. But already as a kid, having watched TOS, I thought these force field belts not to be believable. They seemed to be goofy and after TMP they definitely did look goofy. And I'm quite relieved they used real EVA suits in TMP or could you imagine Leonard Nimoy in TMP just floating around being surrounded by a glowing energy field? (He wasn't a Q)
Just my personal opinion.

Hey, I'm not personally a fan of the force field belts either. I'm not arguing personal opinion, I'm discussing the facts of the situation and the intentions of the people involved in the show's production. I'm saying that the premise that they should have kept the TOS spacesuits "for continuity's sake" doesn't make sense, because the change was not a continuity problem -- not at the time the show was made.

Quote: Robert Meyer Burnett- "...that new Star Trek movie was generic pablum that appealed to the masses."
Dead on. This was a cool interview and quite refreshing to hear from a Trek alumni rather than "it's Trek so it must be awesome."

Click to expand...

Why does every thread have to turn into a Trek 09 pissing match?

I agree with Lokai of Cheron, day one purchase.

Click to expand...

So true, Bill. I was excited to find a TAS Blu-ray thread, but by page 2 I could not read farther. The "Trek 09 pissing match" thing is beyond annoying. Listening to the haters is as tedious as listening to Birthers... and makes about as much sense.

I'll be in line with BillJ and Lokai of Cheron on Day 1. I may be wearing out the TAS on DVD set I received for Father's Day. I just received a BR player for Christmas... TAS would break it in properly!

Characters in animation need to be easily distinguishable on sight. Putting them in spacesuits would've made it harder to tell who was who in a long shot. The force field belts let viewers see the characters just as clearly as they could normally

Click to expand...

....then you followed it in another post by making a second argument having no connection to the first. Your own words and now your defensive position only hammers home the validity of the charge.

Prove it. Prove that the audience for that show was not confused about who was who. Give me testimonials to that effect.

Click to expand...

I watched the series first run and had no problem recognizing the main characters in and out of diving suits. It is not some stretch to say others did not have that problem, either. Moreover, other series of the same era such as Science Ninja Team Gathaman (some may know the series by its westernized version Battle of the Planets) and Space Battleship Yamato (syndicated as Space Cruiser Yamato) featured main cast in and out of helmets/costumes at every angle/distance with no problem with character recognition. There are no published accounts of any of the three series cited as having this imagined issue with audiences of the 1970s.

So, you already have one historical account, and other series which worked quite well with characters wearing space suits, helmets, etc., lending more support to the idea of TAS being able to use the TOS spacesuits.

Further, you were the one--sans any sort of hard evidence--that TAS would not use TOS spacesuits because the audience would not be able to recognize characters, but where is your evidence to support this claim?

You see the force field belts as a continuity error because later productions went back to spacesuits.

Click to expand...

Now that is a presumption, if not a wild leap. I watched TAS first run and immediately noticed the force field belts, the light gray Phasers, larger delta symbols, etc. Anyone familiar with TOS would notice the changes--and in fact, commented on it at the time--not in the wake of ST movies or spin-off TV series.

I suspect it's time to provide an "obvious distraction", but something still tangently related.

A 3D modeler whom I "casually" know on-line is currently making the "Tholian Web" EVA suit in digital form. He's completed the modeling and is currently trying to work out the Poser/DAZ "rigging". When finished, he plans to share it with the hobbyist community, for free of couse.

Prove it. Prove that the audience for that show was not confused about who was who. Give me testimonials to that effect.

Click to expand...

Seriously? This is the last resort of every 1st grader who has tried to win an argument.

Click to expand...

What? On the contrary, evidence is the basis of any legitimate argument. If one is going to claim something as a fact, one needs to be able to support the claim. The poster in question was stating something as an absolute fact but offered no data to support it. Anyone is perfectly entitled to question that. I don't understand why you'd think otherwise. Without data and evidentiary support, any argument is just people tossing empty words at each other, and what's the point of that?